Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2025

State v. Storm-Lestrang

State v. Storm-Lestrang
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Decided January 29, 2025 · Egan
337 Or. App. 577

State v. Storm-Lestrang

Opinion

No. 63 January 29, 2025 577 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BELLATRIX LILLITH ALEXANDRIA MORGAN STORM-LESTRANG, aka Jonathan Caleb Creswell, aka Jonathan C. Creswell, Defendant-Appellant.

Multnomah County Circuit Court 20CR51994; A181784 Christopher J. Marshall, Judge.

Submitted December 13, 2024.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Laura A. Frikert, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.

Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

EGAN, J.

Affirmed.

578 State v. Storm-Lestrang EGAN, J.

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered after she pleaded guilty to criminally negligent homicide constituting domestic violence (Count 1), and unlawful use of a weapon constituting domestic violence (Count 2). Her appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434, 814 P2d 1069 (1991). The brief does not contain a Section B. See ORAP 5.90(1)(b). We affirm.1 Defendant was criminally negligent in causing the death of her brother-in-law in September 2020. After she pleaded guilty, the parties stipulated that she was a 10-E on the sentencing grid block for Count 1. On Count 1, the trial court sentenced defendant to 90 months in prison with 30 months of post-prison supervision (PPS). On Count 2, the trial court sentenced defendant to a concurrent term of 14 months in prison and 24 months of PPS.

Having reviewed the record, including the trial court file, the transcript of the hearings, and the Balfour brief, and taking into account our statutorily circumscribed authority to review, see ORS 138.105, we have identified no arguably meritorious issues.

Affirmed.

As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel. See, e.g., State v. Yother, 310 Or App 563, 484 P3d 1098 (2021) (deciding matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel); Ballinger v. Nooth, 254 Or App 402, 295 P3d 115 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 747 (2013) (same).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.